Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2012 Mazda3

1235715

Comments

  • I set the cruse control to 69, don't ask why, after I set it I looked at the speedometer and it was a tick below 70 and I kept it there. There were some stretches where I had to slow down but I used the cruse most of the way.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,720
    Thanks, I'll have to try it on my local roads. I'd be looking at the Touring not Grand Touring... maybe the Touring has smaller wheels than the GT, which would absorb impacts better?

    As for comparing to a 2003 Sonata... that design dates to the late '90s, so I don't doubt it's fairly crude by modern standards.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Thanks, I'll have to try it on my local roads. I'd be looking at the Touring not Grand Touring... maybe the Touring has smaller wheels than the GT, which would absorb impacts better?

    The Touring and Grand Touring Skyactiv Mazda3's have the same 16" alloy wheels. There should be no difference in ride quality.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    edited November 2011
    Members of the press have beaten up Mazda on the "psychotic" grin of the Mazda3. Now that the fascia has been redesigned, the initial commentary seems approving.

    When I recently saw the new Mazda3 and its "evolutionary" (i.e. small) change, my overall impression was that the front looked tamed and not as dramatic as the previous model.
    This is a bit of a surprise to me, as I was not a big fan of the cheshire smile, although, I must admit, it has grown on me. This echoes my initial reaction to the Audi design which I now think is inspired.

    What say you? Do you think the new Mazda3 design is an improvement over the last version?
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    edited November 2011
    The grin has gone from off-putting to the point were I wouldn't consider the car regardless of its other attributes to just barely acceptable enough to look seriously at a purchase; errr were it not for the ordering limitations.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,999
    edited November 2011
    Members of the press have beaten up Mazda on the "psychotic" grin of the Mazda3

    It was hardly just members of the press. Thousands of comments on forums said the same thing. I never thought "the grin" was THAT bad but always thought they could have done a lot better the front end styling.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    hardly just members of the press. Thousands of comments on forums said the same thing.
    Agreed!

    Personally, I find the Kodo theme used on the fascia of Mazda's Shinari concept car spectacular.

    Here's hoping we see it in the major refresh of the 2013 Mazda3.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,766
    I read recently about Mazda's future product plans. Don't remember where and so I don't have a link to post, but this is what it said,

    fall of 2011, updated 2012 Mazda3 with Skyactiv
    spring of 2012, all new 2013 CX-5
    fall of 2012, all new 2013 Mazda6 with Shinari styling and full Skyactiv
    c. summer to fall of 2013, all new 2014 Mazda3 with complete Skyactiv and the new styling...

    And so we have about 2 years to wait for the all new Mazda3...

    and it looks like the Mazda5 isn't all new until the 2015 or 2016 model year, although maybe they'll drop in a skyactiv engine before then?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I still think they'll drop the SkyActiv-D into the Mazda5. It's a very low-risk move (low reward too, but that's fine for getting one's feet wet with something new).

    I can't wait for 2014, I'm just waiting for the CX-5 reveal. if there's anything that turns me off (MPG too low, price too high, etc) then i guess I'll be test-driving a Mazda3 SkyActiv hatch soon. And lamenting the lack of climate control...
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,999
    Below is cut from an email I received from Mazda. There is a live reveal tomorrow at the LA auto show.

    "For over 50 years we've been obsessed with improving the way our cars look, the way they perform and the way they make you feel behind the wheel. That obsession has driven us to achieve the unheard of. Ultimate efficiency. Fuel economy and performance together. For those who’ve abandoned hope that they can find joy behind the wheel of a Compact Crossover SUV, we’ve built this vehicle for you. Mark your calendars on November 16, 2011, the Mazda CX-5 with revolutionary SKYACTIV® TECHNOLOGY will be revealed."
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,766
    Looking forward to it!
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Yeah, I think Mazda says 9 AM Pacific or something. 2.5 hours to go. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Auto Week has released the specs...155hp and 150tq 26/33mpg with 6-speed stick FWD.

    I'm a bit concerned if this is true because the compression has been increased to 13:1 and it also has the 4-2-1 header system and there is no increase in power over the Mazda3 and the economy is drastically less.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Yeah..it's probably the same weight or a touch heavier, but still, I expected 35 MPG in FWD. Still, the autobox may end up more efficient than the stick, the 33 MPG was specifically with the stick. Automatics are usually MORE efficient these days. Sometimes they're as much as 2 MPG better on the highway, though it's usually more like 1.

    If I get one I guess it won't be AWD. The Mazda3 will be $9.74 per day in gas. The CX-5 will be $11.21. $200 per month versus $230 or so per month. Not a huge difference, but I bet the CX-5 will be more expensive to buy as well. It's just so much better looking though. :shades:
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "Automatics are usually MORE efficient these days. Sometimes they're as much as 2 MPG better on the highway, though it's usually more like 1."

    The above seems to be true as far as the EPA tests are concerned. That said, I've been following "Real-World MPG" posts from owners of a number of cars which have equal to or higher EPA numbers for the automatic transmissions; so far at least, not one Automatic model has been able to post MPG numbers as high as those of their Manual siblings. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this held true for the Mazda offerings with SkyActiv engines as well.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Ok now that they've been announced, we need threads for the 2013 Mazda CX-5. And the 2013 Ford Escape as well, since that, while also projected to get 33 MPG highway, is getting over 170 HP. Oops.

    Unless we want to just continue hijacking the Mazda3 thread? :shades:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    One positive I did notice was 26mpg in the city is a pretty darn impressive
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,999
    edited November 2011
    Yes, the city mpg is very good. Equinox and Tucson each are rated at only 22-32. However, they have much more HP and TQ on tap but I realize they weigh more as well so it should be interesting comparos. I too expected hwy mpg on the CX-5 to be about 35. I wonder how the auto AWD will do? If it comes in at the same as the FWD stick it would be pretty impressive.

    PS Just read an article on autoblog and they are saying:

    "but Mazda says that the Skyactiv powertrain should return best-in-class fuel economy figures: 26/32 miles per gallon (city/highway) with the automatic transmission or an even better 33 mpg highway with the manual"

    I guess the theory that the auto would return better hwy is probably out the window as well as my thoughts about the AWD auto getting as good as the FWD stick. Oh, well. A little disappointment but it looks good and will have to see how it drives.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I think the AWD is predicted to get 30 or 31. I am disappointed, since the new Ford Escape will get the same highway MPG while offering 15 more HP.

    However, since I drive 100 miles a day and oil just went back over $100 a barrel, I think I'm safer joining the 40 MPG club. So we're back to the Mazda3 and the Focus, since I'm not too sure I'll fit in a subcompact.

    Curious that the 2.0L SkyActiv is so dominant in the Mazda3 but less competitive in the CX-5.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Real question is how much will the Escape weigh? The AWD CX-5 tips the scales at 3,400lbs....not too bad.

    While underpowered when compared to the competition, this car still drives better than everything, according to the first reviews.

    We all need to remember it's not all about power, it's about the complete package.
  • Noticed something strange after my drive from NJ to MD yesterday.

    For the past 8 months I have been travelling from NJ to MD in my 2003 Hyundai Sonata and my trip reading was always the same 138 miles – I always take the same route. Yesterday I made the same trip, taking the same route, the same roads, the same everything and the trip reading on my new Mazda3 GT was only 135 miles. I can understand a difference of a few tenths of a mile but a 3 mile difference?

    I do approximately 40% city 60%highway and the Avg. MPG reading on the screen is 40.1 with around 575 miles on the car. I want to take the trip a few more times before I get an accurate manual MPG.

    I did notice this yesterday during my drive: the fuel gauge is a digital readout that is divided into quarters and three boxes fill each quarter – there is a good picture of the instrumentation when you click on the photos of the 2012 Mazda3. Anyway, the first box didn’t disappear until I had 95 miles on the trip reading and that was with the cruse set to 70 MPH.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Hi Chester,

    That economy is impressive. In my Mazda store, we are keeping close tabs on the customers who have already purchased a Skyactiv Mazda3, and every single one is very happy with the FE so far.

    Averaging 40.1 with 40% city driving? Thats amazing. Have you also tried the old fashioned way by filling up and using a calculator? Just curious...
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,999
    Interesting on the mileage difference. You should do a google map route or mapquest and see what the mileage says versus your cars. Not that exact but it may give you a clue as to which is closer. I would probably trust the new car electronics as being more accurate however.

    Most cars I've owned have done the same thing with the gas gauge. It seems you can drive forever before the gauge moves and then it moves fairly slowly until the midway point and then it seems like the vehicle is sucking gas the last half of the tank. Don't know why but it just seems like you can go twice as far on the first half of the tank then the second half. I've seen this over a broad range of makes as well....probably a lot of the same guage suppliers I guess.
  • Aviboy97,

    I want to drive the trip a few more times before I calculate the old-fashioned way. I'm guessing that the on-board readout is a little better then what it actually is but I should know better in a few weeks.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    That's a good idea. The on-board calculators are not perfect, but should give you a good barometer of what you were getting.
  • I did my manual MPG calculation after my second fill-up and the avg. MPG between city and highway came out to be 39.7!

    My last trip was 372.1 miles using 9.378 gallons with a 40% city / 60% highway split. I must point out that I hit congestion on both I95 and the NJ Turnpike on the way home and I’m still getting phenomenal MPGs. I could get even better gas mileage if I slowed down but who wants to do that when you have Zoom Zoom?

    Skyactive has made me a believer!
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,999
    That's some really impressive mpg. What do you figure your avg speed was on the freeway?
  • I set the cruse to 70 when there was no congestion but combine that with the congestion I hit coming home I would have to say that my avg. speed was somewhere around 40MPH. There was a 12 mile stretch of the Turnpike that took me 40 minutes to get through.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Wow, that is REALLY impressive. Now if only they'd update the interior some...
Sign In or Register to comment.